Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: hseamons Date: Apr 29, 2012 10:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: For cosmiccharlie - Post retirement matrix sample...

Got it. My only concern, when it comes to the subjective art of sound, is that super-scientific methods might overshadow an alternative, more enjoyable acoustical energy that can be achieved by way of the mix in tandem with the ACTUAL, MINUSCULE distance between the "present moment" of the SBD and the "present moment" of AUD, which I think is a balancing act from show to show, song to song. They should not be right on top of each other, and they should rub each other the right way, like in good sex. What I'm saying is that there should be room for "play" rather than some theory of sonic "perfection," and that mathematical calculations might create limitations - certainly they are not always the right ones for the task at hand. I can understand the need to apply these techniques to car accidents, but I would prefer much more caution with matrixes, which to me are an art form more so than a science. I don't like using targeting computers when going in for the kill - that's almost like cheating.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dead-head_Monte Date: Apr 29, 2012 11:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: For cosmiccharlie - Post retirement matrix sample...

The art here is purely scientific. Take primary colors, for example. The combination of any two exact primary colors creates an exact secondary color, every time. But, it takes a long time to mix colors and create a good painting. Translated: the combination of any AUD and SBD, pitched and synched exactly together - taped at the same show, creates an exact matrix, every time. But, it takes a long time to create and mix a good matrix.

The sound engineer knows that when mixing two exact sounds (frequencies) together, the result is always four exact frequencies. You will always have the two original frequencies, the sum frequency of the two, and the difference frequency between the two. Every time. For the AUD, you will ALSO have combinations of reflected and delayed sounds. On the SBD side, some instruments may be delayed differently than others, especially when using effects boxes. The P.A. system may also have sub-system arrays that are delayed differently from each other. Alembic did this with GD's sound system during the wall of sound era. AUD and SBD sources will mix differently into each matrix attempt.

Now it's an 'art' to get the matrix sounding the best.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: hseamons Date: Apr 29, 2012 2:03pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: For cosmiccharlie - Post retirement matrix sample...

Are you suggesting that the SBD and AUD need to match exactly, as in they need to be synced right on top of each other? I think the AUD should generally trail behind the SBD ever so slightly. This creates a more "complementary" sound, from my experience. This distancing, which is what I am getting at, is a creative, subjective choice, not a scientific one. What number do you choose for this distance? "3.41"? "3.75"? It's more subjective than one would like to think. On top of that, I think automated "ease ins" and "ease outs" will not match the other tape 100% perfectly - but it can come VERY close. There's always room for minuscule error when applying "samples" to something that is by nature "organic," even with our best instruments. There's always a bigger microscope. The beauty is, however, we can have a "just exactly perfect" sounding blend without it matching perfectly. It's a matter of: how close to the painting do you really need to get? You ultimately have to stand back from it to focus on the experience itself, not the "perfect" or "semi-perfect" brush strokes, which are more or less hidden from the human ear anyway, if done well.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dead-head_Monte Date: Apr 29, 2012 2:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: For cosmiccharlie - Post retirement matrix sample...

No, I'm not saying whether to use synch-offsets "for effect" or not. Synching two tapes will never be perfect for the whole show in a matrix project. But you can get close, like shooting fish in a barrel.

Matrixing and synching messed up tapes is extremely difficult. What if both sources are messed up? It is very time-consuming, including carpal-tunnel syndrome. I'm simply saying, you can get your ducks in a row, and have a life at the same time. Don't kill yourself, and don't humiliate yourself. Consider the science involved. If you do end up quitting this project, at least you'll be an expert at it.

What do you think of the "Bertha remaster" sound, like this Veneta show that Jay Ashley did? I like it! It's not a matrix, or synch-offset, but it's a DAW (digital audio workstation) production. Similar to the matrix controversy, some people like the Bertha sound, and some dislike it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: hseamons Date: Apr 29, 2012 3:07pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: For cosmiccharlie - Post retirement matrix sample...

Got it, makes sense. Use the best tools possible! If they really make it work better, then that's the way to go. Thanks for sharing all the info.

The Bertha's are tricky, because it's totally subjective. Some will like them, others won't. That's just how I feel about the Bertha's: I like some, others I don't so much.

Sometimes I like hearing the "classic" GD recording sound over a more "produced" sound - but man, sometimes that produced, "enhanced" sound just does it for me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: hseamons Date: Apr 29, 2012 2:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: For cosmiccharlie - Post retirement matrix sample...

On second thought, I suppose you could just sync it all on top of each other using the techniques you have described, and then just push the AUD back however far is desired, as one big piece. (But something tells me that might not work across the board.) So, yeah, the more technology to figure this stuff out the better. I guess we are in total agreement at this point. Great discussion!